Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wrong numbers

Hungarian military experience (according to history of ottoman-hungarian wars): Turks could win only with minimum 3X preponderance. Because: 1. they are/were smaller shorter people, the tallness and lenghts of arms were important in hand to hand combats, 2. the Turkish (and other Middle-Eastern) metal/steel-technology was too backward to make similar advanced armours as european armours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does everyone add such huge Ottoman numbers!? It was totaly impossible for the Sultan to gather such huge armies after all the previous wars. I have red about this battle in many history book, and the most common numbers were about 20,000 Turks against a total of 60,000 Hungarians and Wallachians. They obiviously outnumbered the Turks, since they were allied!

It's not true. The highest number of Turk soldiers were 100 000 in this times. Probably in siege of belgrade fought about 60 000 Turks. And I have references for this. --Vojvodaen 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep; NOBODY layed a siege with inferior numbers during the 15th cebtury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.28.45 (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The souces from the books regarding the numbers does not cite ANY citations at all. The article is nothing but a lack of quality as long as the numbers are stated as official. It should be noted as Unknown. It is impossible to know how many forces there were. the fundamental sources are not being neutral, but they are being irrational, such as most of the battles concerning the Ottomans are.

It is interesting, every article I read about a war between western powers and ottomans, ottomans fight with too many opponents, but always ottoman armies is twice (or more) the size of opponents, and at the end ottomans have too many casualties, they lose almost all soldiers even if they won. I think the turks are growing too fast, every year they can found ten-thousands mans to be killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.173 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that they were not only Turks. It was the Ottoman Empire, with many more conquered nations living under their rule, not just turks. While the core of the Ottoman army was well-armed and well-trained, the majority of the soldiers were more or less slaves who were ordered to either fight or get executed. This makes a huge difference against an army which fights to defend it's own homeland. --131.188.3.21 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Belgrade or Nándorfehérvár

Shouldn't we redirect this to "Siege of Belgrade"? :) --Joy [shallot] 12:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The articles on John Hunyadi and Giovanni da Capistrano talk of Belgrade, not Nándorfehérvár, although this did seem to be its official name at the time. I'll redirect the other way around for now. --Joy [shallot] 12:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article on John Hunyadi uses both alternately - Greg

And on the other hand, the Magyar name was probably phased out by the time the other sieges happened... dunno. --Joy [shallot] 12:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that Siege of Nándorfehérvár is not appropriate as Belgrade is the common english name. One constant of manny old (and new) cities is that they changed names. While the historic event the article refers to, took place in the middle ages since Belgrade is constantly populated a designation as Siege of Belgrade seems logical as it is the 'same' city. Historic events that took place at Belgrade in anticity should refer to the antique name of Singidunum, which was a different settlement at the same location. Orjen

I guess that rationale makes sense. Besides, Nándorfehérvár doesn't seem notable enough to have an article of its own (a border fort? don't think it would ever have), so there's no obvious lineage to it. --Joy [shallot] 6 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

No. Nándorfehérvár was part of the Hungarian Kingdom and the hungarians were fighting for their land. I hate this tendency about creating the history according to the nowdays borders (Slovakia existed in the 15th century and also was the greatest goldminer in the world, Transilvania was a rumanian domain,etc.) This very simple lies would not stand here so long if the Wikipedia is really chasing the truth. Alan

sultan's suicide

I think that it is historically inaccurate to state that the Ottoman Sultan was barely prevented for commiting suicide by poison after the failure of the Siege of Belgrade. It seems to me hard to comprehend that the man who Conquerered Constantinople and later subdued Bosnia and Serbia could think about commiting suicide because of losing a single battle. This does not decrease the importance of the Siege of Belgrade, but losing in Belgrade did not have dire consequences on the fate of the already exisiting Ottoman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.206.20 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 25 July 2005

Suicide theory isn't true but Mehmet II the Conqueror, in a point, was too close to death. He realized that his army started to escape from the battlefield so he attacked to the enemy line individually. He got injured from his arm and head. Then the fleeing Ottoman soldiers saw the condition of their emperor, they turned back and they saved both their emperor and the lives of many Ottoman troops by the hands of the enemy. With respect, Deliogul 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The "follow up" section

Who are McNally and Flerescu? Where and when were they published? Why is there no reference? The person is totally non-neutral in showing no citation of references, in the use of weasel words like 'no doubt' etc. and in the whole tone and content of especially the "Follow up" section. For example, it totally neglects facts of Ottoman succession after Mehmed II. This section needs a more knowledgable, not one sided and NEUTRAL write-up.88.104.160.81 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts that whoever wrote the last section knows what he was talking about. Raids into Hungary continued as soon as the Ottomans could do it, and large parts of Hungary were eventually conquered, culminating in sieges of Vienna. Should be reworked, there's plenty of info on the Ottoman wars in Europe in other articles.

I agree and I made the corrections to this absurd revisionism based the accounts of McNally and Florescu, everything there is to read on Hunyadi and Mehmet II, and the basic facts about the Ottoman wars in Europe documented on this site. Whoever wrote that was an amatuer Ottoman Empire enthusiast attempting to discredit Hunyadi by making the ridiculous claim that the battle tipped the scaled in favor of the Ottomans. This little theory unintentionally made Mehmet (or Mehmed) the Conquerer sound like a sissy. Mehmet II is not as well-remembered by most Westerners, but he was on par with Ghengis Khan as an Asiatic conquerer. This man wanted the world, and he was not about to change his mind without a fight. He made several attempts to attack Hungary and I have explained why he was not successful. As for Hunyadi, he was far from infallable but his abilities as a military strategist and a political leader saved Europe from a man who could have otherwise conquered half the continent. 05:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted the contradictory sentence about Hungary being vulnerable to attack. This is where this person's little theory is not only ahistorical but does not even make sense. Even disregarding world history and well-documented facts about his intentions and character, if Mehmet II was "not in the least interested in occupying Hungary," why would he directly attack Hungary instead of using his military strength to cement his authority over the Balkan territories? This would amount to nothing but harrassing the Hungarians and making a new enemy in the militarily strong but rarely aggressive Matthias, something he certainly wouldn't have done if he only wanted the Balkans. Matthias' army was clearly strong enough to successfully defend Hungary and launch retaliatory attacks on Mehmet II (who already had Balkan resistance to deal with), so any preemtive attacks on Hungary would have been a completely wasteful and idiotic move on Mehmet's part in this fantasy where he only wanted the Balkans. And what does the loss of Belgrade have to do with him anyway? Belgrade was still threatened by Mehmet but was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. Suleiman was not as capable a military leader as Mehmet was, and he conquered a large portion of Hungary. The ridiculous theory would have us believe the fearsome and ambitious Mehmet II would have left Hungary alone had he managed to take Belgrade. The question is, should the revisionist nonsense assertion even be here at all? Can whoever wrote it back it up? Does anyone have any objection to the idea of entirely deleting it? 10:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I realize what was bothering me about this section, and why it was a waste of time to even argue with it. It was so simple (and the claim so stupid) that it passed my eye. Mehmet did not see the Danube and the Sava as his boundry in any way. His predeccessors had already extended their influence past the Danube and into the Romanian territories or Danubian principalities (Wallachia and Moldavia). Mehmet II, the great conquerer of Constantinople, certainly had no desire to withdraw from those regions and in fact Vlad Tepes and Stephen III successfully thwarted his attempts to strenghten Ottoman authory over those two principalities (although neither actually won independence from the Ottoman Empire). So why would this person claim Mehmet's later attacks were opportunism instead of an attempt to once again live up to his his nickname? Well, for whatever reason, the writer is claiming Hunyadi actually LOST the Siege of Belgrade to Mehmet the Conquerer! I don't even think the most staunch Turkish nationalist would try to claim that with a straight face. As I mentioned before, Belgrade was not reconquered by the Ottomans until 1521 under Suleiman the Magnificent. I'm going to have to rewrite the "follow-up" section. As for whoever wrote this, I'm not sure but I think I can guess what he (and I doubt it was a woman, you never know though) was up to. I respect Muslims who have a respect for history and actually have something valuable to contribute to the history of the Ottoman Wars, but the moderators of this site should beware of vandalism such as this which falls under the category of "Jihad through deceit." 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote that part about Vlad Tepes being the reason that Hunyadi won the battle? Are McNally and Florescu really the best sources? Their book is something of a sensationalist narrative rather than scholarly history, no? At least that's my impression of what others have told me. I could be wrong. But seriously, there are no better sources? InFairness 23:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who ever claimed Vlad Tepes was the reason Hunyadi won the battle, but I never made such a claim or heard of it. McNally and Florescu never made such a claim either, and they note that Vlad Tepes was actually not at the battle but assigned to guard Transylvania during the battle and given permission invade Wallachia in the event of a Hungarian victory. McNally and Florescu were/are solid pioneering historians, and the only way in which they are really controversial and sensationalistic is that they exaggerated the influence of the historical Dracula on Stoker's vampire namesake. The reason Vlad Tepes is mentioned here is that he is one of the most important proteges Hunyadi was able to install in thanks to his victory at Belgrade, not because Vlad had anything to do with the victory itself. 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For Front Page

This should be on the frontpage in the "On this day..." section. The 550 year anniversary celebrations of the victory are held this very weekend throughout Hungary. 195.70.32.136 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mehmed" or "Mehmet"

I'm getting rid of "Mehmet" altogether, since "Mehmed" is a much more common way of writing his name.Shield2 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mehmed.--Vojvodaen 17:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ships

The article mentions that Ottomans had "200 ships" to help them. Yet the battle took place at Belgrade which is an inland city. How did the ships come useful in this case? Vice regent 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As Belgrade lies at the confluence of two major rivers, ships were used to block attempts to bring reinforcments in from Hungary and encircle the city, which failed 1456 but was succesful in 1521 when Sultan Suleyman conquered the city. orjen 13:58, 01 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Vice regent 00:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

confusing section

The latter part of this section makes little sense and does not fit the first part. The last sentence isn't (a sentence, that is).

The outnumbered defenders relied mainly on the strength of the formidable castle of Belgrade which was at the time one of the best engineered in the Balkans. As Belgrade was designated to be the capital of the Serbian Despotate by Despot Stefan Lazarević. Ottoman raids were expected after they recovered from the heavy loss against the Mongols. Utilising advanced building techniques from Byzantine and Arab fortress designs from the period of Seljuk and Ottoman military conflicts of the mid-11th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fall of Istanbul VS Siege of Belgrade

It was Nándorfehérvár back then so it should be Siege of Nándorfehérvár. Just like it is called the Fall of Constantinopol and not Fall of Istanbul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.164.123 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)